Agenda Packets - 2016/10/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item 07D October 24, 2016 Page 4 g. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Public Comments A Public Hearing Notice was published in the New Brighton / Mounds View Sun Focus on August 19, 2016, and mailed to 31 property owners within 350’ of the subject property. Staff received an email from a resident on Eastwood Rd opposed to the Variance because the proposed home with a reduced setback would look out of place, and because the existing wooded yard blocks noise and lights from properties along Mounds View Blvd (Co Rd 10). During the September 7th Public Hearing, one resident on Sunnyside Rd spoke in opposition to the Variance because the reduced front yard setback would not be in-line with surrounding homes, and was opposed to the removal of trees on the lot. The subject property is heavily wooded. City Code, Chapter 1127 includes regulations for Tree Preservation and Landscaping. The City Code encourages, but does not require the preservation of “high value” and “specimen” trees within the R-1 Single- Family Residential district. Planning Commission’s Denial The Planning Commission considered the Variance request at three meetings. At the Oct 5th meeting, a motion was made to approve the Variance, on a 4-3 vote. A 2/3’s majority of the full Commission is required to approve a Variance (i.e. 5 of 7 votes) (City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 4(f). MN Statute §15.99, Subd 2(b) states; When a vote on a resolution or properly made motion to approve a request fails for any reason, the failure shall constitute a denial of the request provided that those voting against the motion state on the record the reasons why they oppose the request. A denial of the request because of a failure to approve a resolution or motion does not preclude an immediate submission of a same or similar request. Those Commissioners voting against approval of the Variance stated that their reasons included that the Variance was not consistent with City Code, Section 1125.02, Subd 2, items d, e, and f (refer to the variance criteria a-g, listed under “Analysis”).